A general feature of the cerebral cortex is its massive interconnectivity - it has been estimated anatomically [19] that cortical neurons receive upwards of 5,000 synapses, the majority of which originate from other nearby cortical neurons. Numerous experiments in primary visual cortex (VI) have revealed strongly nonlinear interactions between stimulus elements which activate classical and nonclassical receptive field regions. Recurrent cortical connections likely contribute substantially to these effects. However, most theories of visual processing have either assumed a feedforward processing scheme [7], or have used recurrent interactions to account for isolated effects only [1, 16, 18]. Since nonlinear systems cannot in general be taken apart and analyzed in pieces, it is not clear what one learns by building a recurrent model that only accounts for one, or very few phenomena. Here we develop a relatively simple model of recurrent interactions in VI, that reflects major anatomical and physiological features of intracortical connectivity, and simultaneously accounts for a wide range of phenomena observed physiologically. All phenomena we address are strongly nonlinear, and cannot be explained by linear feedforward models.

Biological sensorimotor systems are not static maps that transform input (sensory information) into output (motor behavior). Evidence frommany lines of research suggests that their representations are plastic, experience-dependent entities. While this plasticity is essential for flexible behavior, it presents the nervous system with difficult organizational challenges. If the sensorimotor system adapts itself to perform well under one set of circumstances, will it then perform poorly when placed in an environment with different demands (negative transfer)? Will a later experience-dependent change undo the benefits of previous learning (catastrophic interference)?

Biological sensorimotor systems are not static maps that transform input (sensory information) into output (motor behavior). Evidence from many lines of research suggests that their representations are plastic, experience-dependent entities. While this plasticity is essential for flexible behavior, it presents the nervous system with difficult organizational challenges. If the sensorimotor system adapts itself to perform well under one set of circumstances, will it then perform poorly when placed in an environment with different demands (negative transfer)? Will a later experience-dependent change undo the benefits of previous learning (catastrophic interference)?